Ink

 

Kid with ink drawing mimicking tattoos. A lot of the tattoos I saw the other day were no more artfully placed and were equally bad.

I went to two weddings in two weeks.  They were both outdoor weddings.

Weddings in July mean, of course, that people's clothing is relatively light.  Women wearing dresses, generally will wear light ones, although anymore, a lot of women don't wear dresses to outdoor summer weddings.  The nature of summer dresses is such that women therefore are showing more skin than they do in, let's say, January.  This is true for a lot of men as well, although not to the same extent.

One of the guys I know at the second wedding is a year or two out of the Navy, in which he spent six years.  His comment, "geez, with all these tattoos, maybe I should get a tattoo".  It was said in at least semi jest.

That a sailor would comment on the plethora of tattoos really says something.

There were quite a few women with tattoos at the first one, but it was also on a ranch, and probably half or more of the attendees were actual working ranchers or hands of some sort.  Young women at that one were closely associated with ranching.  Tattoos haven't spread, at least here locally, to the agricultural class.

They certainly have to the legal class.  I'd guess about 1/3d of the paralegals, who are usually women, have tattoos and I know some lawyers who have tattoos, which used to be the kiss of death for employment in the law.

Anyhow, never in my life have I seen so many outright bad tattoos as I did at the second wedding.  And I mean horrifically bad.

The best example was a young woman (I'm terrible at guessing ages) who was nicely dressed in a summer dress and who has attractive in the sort of youthful pouty way.  The sort of girl whom, if she'd been that age when I was that age, in the early 80s, would have drawn a lot of attention at a dance.  But the horrific tattoos. . . 

Both arms were tattooed, one with a horrific crying heart, which is just childish in the extreme.  And there was some sort of tattoo of an off-color dead center on her sternum.  Roman numerals?  Initials?  I dunno as the color made it difficult to see, if noticeable, and a person would have had to close the distance to read it.

Do women really want men reading tattoos that are cleavage originated?

The same young woman and an older woman (late 30s?), who may very well have been her mother, had very fresh tattoos that started on their lower side and curbed into their bodies. They were large.  Now, these tattoos were such that they'd have had to have been pretty much completely nude in order to view them, which raises its own question.  If they're just elaborate floral decorations, what's the point, unless you want to show them off, in which case, well, that's its own problem.

One young man had a long arm tattoo that was a set of geographic coordinates.  Why?  Whatever the reason, these remind me of the blood group tattoos that members of the SS had during World War Two, or that Vietnamese Marines had during the Vietnam War.  Both of those tattoos, by the way, gave the person away later on to the victors in those war as to their wartime service.

Some young woman had a huge, but quite well-done tattoo of a water dog of some sort.  It was very artfully done, but extremely large.

Now, I have to be careful here.

I have to be careful as 100% of the female members of this household are now tattooed, the spousal unit having a small tattoo that's a significant signature to her, and the female descendant having one or deep religious significance and the other of personal significance, which are very well done.  The latter aren't visible normally. The former is barely noticeable.  And the male defendant's long time wishes to be betrothed has a colored trout tattoo that's quite well done.  In my place of legal employment, one of the male employees has two tattoos for which I'm responsible, remotely, as I noted the pilgrim's tattoos from Jerusalem when he was on his way there.

I have to admit, if I went to Jerusalem, which I have less than zero interest in doing, I'd get one of the pilgrim tattoos, although that brings up something about tattoos, which is that they sometimes seem to operate like peanuts at the bar.  You have a couple, and then the next thing you know, you've forged on them.  My colleague started with one, then had it added to, and then got a second.  One former female employee of mine was constantly having new ones added.  The pouty girl at the wedding probably started off with one (bad) one before they spread.

Over a year ago, I ran this item:

Percentage Tattooed

 From the Twitter feed of Simon Kuestenmacher:

I admit, I just hate this trend.  And if its 46% of Americans, that means its well over 50% of younger Americans.

I've wondered what it was in the US. Over my lifetime, It's gone from something only certain veterans and members of motorcycle clubs had to being darned nearly universal for people under 40.  I have to confess that while tattoos have gotten better, I hate this trend.

I really wonder what percentage it is now, just a little over a year later, but this is an amazing trend.  That Israel stands at 25% is notable, for example, as tattoos are banned by the Torah.

You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves: I am the Lord.

Leviticus 19:28.

Indeed, some Christians take the position that tattoos are likewise accordingly banned for everyone, but generally this is regarded as one of the Jewish laws, like ritual cleaning of pots and pans, clothing fiber restrictions, and circumcision that is regarded by most Christians as having been lifted by Christ.*  Indeed, in some Christian cultures at one time, tattooing was common to mark yourself as a Christian.  As already noted, Christians being tattooed in Jerusalem for having made the pilgrimage there is an ancient custom.

Those pilgrimage tattoos set a person apart because they've been on the pilgrimage, which is an important clue, I think, to the popularity of tattoos in our current era.  Tattoos have always set a person apart, while at the same, quite often, saying that you belong to some sort of special group.  Marine Corps tattoos meant that you'd been part, or were part, of a hardcore group of soldiers of the sea, tough men.  Bluebird tattoos on the chest likewise meant that a man had been part of the pre World War Two 25th Infantry Division, which was stationed in Hawaii.  Biker gang tattoos served the same purpose.

When tattoos starting emerging in recent times in the wider population, this was still true.  It might mean, for example, that athe person was a member of a sports team.  Now, however, what they seem to be trying to do is to either express a deep belief of some sort, something important to the person, or to set the person apart, sometimes both.

And hence the purpose. They're a reflection on the fake nature of modern life.  

In prior eras, people lived so much closer to authenticity that tattoos for the masses were basically unnecessary.  Tattoos expressed something unusual, but most of society experienced a wider authentic life.  Not necessarily a pleasant one, but an authentic one.

Now a lot of life just isn't authentic.

The culture has been stripped of its authenticity and much of the most fundamental aspects of it are now reduced to "lifestyles".  In the wider American culture, nothing has much of a value, including people and existential beliefs.  

Tattoos are a strike against that in a valueless society.  Not always effectively, and not always entirely.

An office worker may spend his days in a cubicle, but his arm sleeve of the forest says where his heart is, and where he wants to be.  A mother may spend all day in front of a computer, but the names of her children say where her heart his and where she wants to be.  A bold religious tattoos says the wearer can't get to Mass daily, but that's where her heart his.

Nobody gets a tattoo of a cubicle. 

Footnotes

*Generally, most Christian denominations don't hold anything against tattoos per se today, although some "fundamentalist" Christians do, and some of those can be found in any denomination.

It Catholicism, there's no set rules on tattoos, which is true of most other Christian denominations, maybe all of them. The only time they're regarded as definitely sinful is if they're in the nature of something sinful, i.e., the classic naked lady type tattoo.

Still, some must feel uncomfortable about them as it was recently notice that one of the chapel veil girls at our local parish applies make up to a tattoo of a turtle on her forearm while at Mass. There's really no reason she would need to do so.

Related posts

The Evolution and Rise of the Tattoo.

Percentage Tattooed

Coast Guard Drill Instructor

i nolunt

Radical refusal to consent.

More specifically, radical refusal to consent to the spirit of the times.  It's part of what I admire in them, but it didn't strike me until recently.

John Pondoro Taylor, in his memoirs, recalled having seen Maasai walking through Nairobi as if it simply wasn't there, as they had always done, dressed in their traditional fashion, and carrying spears.  On their way from one place to another, refusing to consent that the development of the city meant anything in real terms.

I was recently waiting in the Church for the confession line to form.  One of the Mantilla Girls walked in.  I've seen this one once or twice before, but not at this Church.  She not only wears the mantilla, and is very pretty, but she carries herself with pride.

They don't all do that.  Some of the younger women who wear chapel veils do so very naturally.  Some sort of timidly, or uncomfortably.  With at least one, and I could be massively off the mark, it's almost sort of an affectation.  But here, you see something quite different.

Or so it seems.

I don't know her.  I could be wrong.  But it's clear she isn't timid and it's not an affectation.  

It is, it seems to me, a radical rejection of the modern secular world in favor of existential nature.

For those who believe in the modern world, in modernism, or the spirit of the times, or who are hostile to religion, that may seem like a shocking statement.  But the essence of our modern lives (or post-modern, if you insist) is a radical rejection of nature, most particularly our own natures.  Wearing a chapel veil indicates that the person deeply believes in a set of beliefs that are enormously grounded in nature.  The wearer is a woman, in radical alignment with biology in every sense, and accepting everything that means, including what the modern world, left and right, detest.  I nolunt.  She's accepting of the derision, and ironically, or in actuality not ironically, probably vastly happier than those who have accommodated modernity.

Moreover, those who think they're reaching out for a radical inclusion of the natural, who don't take the same approach, never can quite reach authenticity.  There can always be a slight feeling that something isn't authentic, and there isn't.  Reserving an element of modernity defeats it.

Related Thread:

We like everything to be all natural. . . . except for us.

Labels: Agrarianism, Agriculture, An hoc pertinet ad naturam?, Commentary, Daily Living, Food, Friday Farming, Medicine, Men, nature, The roles of men and women, transgenderism, trends, Women

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 64th Edition. Things authentic and important.

Why there?

On Saturday, March 30, Pro Hamas protestors interrupted the Easter Vigil Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City.

Why St. Patrick's?

For the same reason, most likely, that LGBTQ+ figures had a protesting funeral there recently. People are drawn to Catholic places, as they're real, and therefore attention is paid to them.

Why her?

Courtney Love, in an interview with Standard, stated; "Taylor is not important. She might be a safe space for girls, and she's probably the Madonna of now, but she's not interesting as an artist."

This followed Billie Eilish criticizing, sort of anonymously, "wasteful artists" who put out multiple vinyl editions, an apparent softball for sustainability.  She later said her comments weren't directed at Swift.

Hmmm. . . 

Why are these chanteuses dissing Taylor?  

I don't really know, but I will note that Love commenting on who is important and interesting in laughable.  Is Love "important" or "interesting"?  If she is, she might be interesting as she's the late wife of the tragic Curt Cobane, whom I don't find to have been particularly important, but certainly tragic.  And for Eilish, she's sort of a teenage train wreck who probably needs to get over her weird diet and flipping between hiding her form and flaunting it.

Taylor is interesting because she's a musical success.  I don't like her music, which I find to be juvenile, but I will note that appearance wise she's a throwback almost to the 1940s, and appears to have gained success while being basically normal in every fashion.  

Culturally, therefore, she might be sort of important in a way.

Love, and Eilish, on the other hand, might be fairly unimportant in every sense.  Musically, right now, it's hard to see what actually is important.  Whoever they are, they aren't in pop music.  

Indeed, much of society seems to be grasping for the authentic and important right now, without much out there in the culture offering it.

Appearances

Back in November, I posted this item:

What the Young Want.* The Visual Testimony of the Trad Girls. The Authenticity Crisis, Part One.

Since that time, this trend locally has noticeably increased.  It's really remarkable.

For whatever reason, I'm a student of people, so I take notice of what they wear.  I'm probably in a minority of sorts that way.  What people wear at Mass is a common topic in Cyber Catholic circles, but the recent turn towards the conservative amongst young, white, female Catholic parishioners is really remarkable.  It's a real rejection of the cultural norm of our era.

Indeed, very recently, even amongst those young women who were part of this group, there's suddenly a change.  One young woman who is routinely at Mass with her family on Sundays, and who typically showed a lot of shoulder (no, there's no problem with that) is now covering up hugely.  Something's changed.  It doesn't, however, carry over to Hispanic or Native American young women, both of whom continue to dress the way they have.  Hispanics have always dressed very conservatively at Mass, but not in a trad fashion. They're keeping on keeping on with that.

News, real news but in a rumor fashion, leaked out recently that the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Byzantine Church is looking at putting in a mission in Casper, which would be a mission of a mission.  I don't know how many Ukrainian Catholics there may be in town, but I'll bet it's a tiny number.  I also bet that the mission church that's thinking of establishing a mission here, which is out of Cody, serves a mostly non-Eastern Rite community.  

Something is going on there too.  At a time at which some in the Latin Rite seem focused on a topic that's frankly jumped the shark, by and large, and which is really a matter of European culture, not biology, the young and rank and file in the pews seem to be moving on.  

Becoming a parody of yourself

One of the risks of taking the long reach for something is that you can end up actually becoming unauthentic in your quest for authenticity.

I'm reminded of Courtney Love again.

On her Wikipedia page, there's a picture of Love wearing a kokoshnik, a stiff hat associated with Russian women.  Russian women don't wear them anymore, and I'm sure they haven't for eons.  She's wearing it with a miniskirt.  It looked absurd, but was probably meant to make a statement.  Or here's another example:

The kind of dumb stuff you say when you actually really care about "your 'basic' fashion sense".

I don't know who Japanese Breakfast is (or for that matter what an actual Japanese breakfast is) but they've showed up on this Twitter headline:

Japanese Breakfast is too busy returning to Coachella and making 'music for bottoms' to care about your 'basic' fashion sense

Oh, bull.  That's the exact thing you say when you've tuned your fashion sense to look like you don't have a fashion sense, so you can appear to stay edgy for Coachella.

M'eh.

Exactly.  

I note this as in the pews are a young couple, they're not married but perhaps engaged, whose family I somewhat know.  From a very conservative background, they're trying to affect the disaffected but conservative look to the max.  Unwashed hair and, for the young man, probably third or fourth hand overcoats from the 1970s with huge hounds tooth pattern. The young woman wears, of course, a chapel veil but also is affecting plain to the maximum extent possible, which is detracting a bit from her appearance.  I do love her very round, plain glasses, however.

Anyhow, when going for something crosses over into sort of a parody, you've gone too far.

Lost

Anyhow, I think this trend has been going on for a while.  It explains the entire Hipster look that's still with us, and was much in force several years ago.

Some days, when I leave the office, there's a young woman coming in.  She's either a Native American or a Hispanic from somewhere south of the border.  She's always dressed very conservatively, with dresses that remind me of what Latin American women traditionally wear.  She always has a big smile when you see and acknowledge her.

She's authentic.

Last prior edition:

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 63d Edition. Strange Bedfellows.

Apostolic Christianity, Catholic, Donald Trump, Education, homosexuality, Israeli Hamas War, law, Mormon, Pope Francis, religion, Sex, theology, Zeitgeist

St. Patrick's Day

A Celtic cross in a local cemetery, marking the grave of a very Irish, and Irish Catholic, figure.

Recently I ran this item: 

Lex Anteinternet: The Obituary: Mira qué bonita era by Julio Romero de Torres, 1895.  Depiction of a wake in Spain. I didn't have him as a teacher in high school, but I...

One of the things this oituary noted was:

"One more St. Patrick’s day craic for you, Dad."

That's nice, but what does that mean?

From Wikipedia:

Craic (/kræk/ KRAK) or crack is a term for news, gossip, fun, entertainment, and enjoyable conversation, particularly prominent in Ireland.It is often used with the definite article – the craic– as in the expression "What's the craic?" (meaning "How are you?" or "What's happening?"). The word has an unusual history; the Scots and English crack was borrowed into Irish as craic in the mid-20th century and the Irish spelling was then reborrowed into English. Under either spelling, the term has attracted popularity and significance in Ireland.

A relative who kn3w the decedent well told me that in later years he really got into "being Irish" and had big St. Patrick's Day parties.

But is that Irish?

Not really.  That's hosting a party.

Granted, it's hosting a party in honor of the Saint, sort of. Or perhaps in honor of Ireland, sort of.  And there's nothing wrong with that whatsoever.  After all, "holidays" comes from "holy days", which were "feasts".   There are, by my recollection, some feast days even during Lent, and for that matter, it's often noted, but somewhat debated, that Sundays during Lent aren't technically part of it (although this post isn't on that topic, perhaps I'll address that elsewhere.

And St. Philip Neri tells us, moreover,  "Cheerfulness strengthens the heart and makes us persevere in a good life; wherefore the servant of God ought always to be in good spirits."

So, no problem, right?

Well, perhaps, as long as we're not missing the point.

The Irish everywhere honor this day, and some of that involves revelry.  Traditionally it was a day that events like Steeple Chases were conducted, sports being closely associated, actually, with religious holidays on the British Isles.  But the day is also often marked by the devout going to Mass, and as the recent Irish election shows, the Irish are more deeply Catholic than some recent pundits might suggest.

Perhaps it might be best, really, to compare the day to the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe in North America, which is widely observed by devout Catholics, and not only in Mexican American communities.

So, I guess, a purely bacchanalian event, which is so common in the US, doesn't really observe the holiday, but something else, and that risks dishonoring the day itself.  Beyond that, it's interesting how some in North America become particularly "Irish" on this day, when in fact the root of the day, and the person it honors, would import a different type of conduct entirely to some extent, if that was not appreciated.  Indeed, with many, St. Patrick would suggest confession and repentance.

Am I being too crabby?  

Probably, but we strive for authenticity in our lives and desire it.  That's so often at war with our own personal desires which often, quite frankly, aren't authentic.  Things aren't easy.

Unyielding

Maasai man, Kenya.

It was John Pondoro Taylor who noted that when he lived in Africa, there remained members of one of the indigenous tribes to the region, I forget which one, who would come into Nairobi and walk through, carrying spears as they always had, ignoring its existence.

It had been their land before, and they were refusing to acknowledge the change.  

Admirable?

Stubborn?

Delusional?

All three?

I note this as earlier we noted that one of our resolutions was to be Honest, and another to be Authentic.

Those can come across as unyielding.  Or stubborn.  Or wacko.

And sometimes they really are.

But sometimes they are not, and are perceived as being so.

This gets back to a topic that we discussed recently, more than once actually, in regard to Fiducia Supplicans and also in regard to our lengthy post on the unfortunate change in domestic law over time. We noted there that some Catholic spouses who have opposed divorce and annulment refuse to acknowledge them. In the latter case, those people are truly poorly received with Priests reacting in horror to that thought.

I admire them.

That's because I'm skeptical that people don't lie to obtain annulments.  All the posts you see concerning the process are adamant that this doesn't occur, and that lairs are weeded out.  My problem is that if you've done a year or more of actual litigation work, that gets pretty difficult to fully accept.

This isn't really about that, but I'd go on to note that the opposite of being honest and authentic is that by and large most Christians fully accept divorce, even though Christ did not, and most Protestant denominations don't bat an eye about remarrying people, even multiple times.  

That's dishonest, if some thought is given to it.

But then, here's the problem.  How do you come across as honest and authentic without being a weirdo or a jerk?

Well, sometimes you cannot. But a lot of it is demeanor.  

I wouldn't, for instance, suggest running up and telling somebody you know to be divorced and remarried that they're living in adultery.  Indeed, that might assume a lot.  For instance, their first marriage may truly be invalid, and in their denomination, annulment might not exist at all.  You really don't know.  

By the same token, I wouldn't run up to a divorced/annulled and remarried Catholic, or a divorced and remarried Orthodox Christian, and say "hey, you are committing a fraud".

But, if asked to go to a second marriage, or third, or sixth, I would be inclined to say, "I'm sorry, I want you happy, but I believe that you can't be married more than once and I can't testify by my appearance that I think otherwise. . . I hope you understand, and I'll pray for you both."

Most of the time, an approach like that generally works.  Most people don't take offense, for example, to the LDS barring non-Mormon's to temple weddings. They shouldn't take offense if they do.  And most people don't take offense to Jews and Muslims not eating or serving pork, or Catholics not eating meat on Lenten Fridays, and the like.  People get curious about it, and may say some things in jest, but usually they're just disarming some surprise and disease by a serious belief.

There are exceptions, of course.

Extreme examples abound.  Instances of soldiers refusing to carry out immoral orders, or things of that nature.  One German officer by the last name of Homig, for instance, told his commanding officer that he could not carry out an order to execute civilians as he was a lawyer, a Catholic, and an Army officer. He went so far as to call in his subordinates and men together to inform them of his order.

Bold.

Most of us aren't asked to do that.

But we might be asked to do uncomfortable things of a lesser nature, and some won't be well recieved.

Honesty and Authenticity. Resolutions.

Many years I post a resolution thread, particularly with those for other people, that being a type of frankly snarky satire.  I sometimes note some for myself as well.

This year I haven't posted anything.

The grimness of 2023 has a lot to do with that.  On a professional note, and by all externals, I had a fairly good year last year. Economically, it went well, in spite of being knocked out for surgery.   But surgery and health wise it was really tough.  So I haven't been in the mood for that.

I am one of those people who do resolutions, and looking back on them, I'm also one of those people who typically fail at them. That's not a reason to try, however.  And I've had enough in the way of shocks and major setbacks over the year not to look at life in 2023 as sort of ending me to the penalty box.  So here's at it.

Rather than set resolutions, and I know generally what mine would be anyhow, I'm instead going to note a dedication, which is a form of resolution. And that would be Honesty and Authenticity.  I'm tired of the dishonest and unauthentic.

I believe, as part of this overall, that dishonest and unauthentic behavior and actions are responsible for almost all of the problems our society faces right now, and I need to reflect that myself.  Casting a wide net, almost all of our personal problems, and our national, and international ones, are due to dishonesty and inauthenticity.

Not that the honest and authentic win any prizes of any kind with people.  People like to be told lies that they agree with to support their own dishonest beliefs, wants and behaviors. And people like fake too.

But deep down, that doesn't work.

It's not as if I've been living a dishonest and inauthentic life.  But most of us make a lot of mental compromises to get along in daily life this way.  It's really not good for anything.

Related Threads:

2023. Annus horribilis and a Gift.

Elise Stefanik. Lying bad example.

Kristen Welker:  "Do you think it was a tragic day? Do you think that the people who stormed the Capitol should be held responsible to the full extent of the law?"

Elise Stefanik: "I have concerns about the treatment of January 6 hostages."

Ms. Stefanik, you are a Catholic and lying on something like this is a grave sin.

And you are a mother.  Your child is learning to be reprehensible through you.